The Jack Lemmon Blogathon: Days of Wine and Roses (1962)

Critica Retroand Wide Screen World are hosting the Jack Lemmon blogathon, and I thought I would jump in and contribute since Jack Lemmon was such a great actor, and I particularly admire his versatility and dedication to the screen. He was cast in such well-known films as “Some Like It Hot” (1959) and “The Apartment” (1960), but I thought I would talk about the more controversial and serious “Days of Wine and Roses” (1962). I would also like to thank Paul at Paul’s Cinema & TV Reviews for recommending that I watch this film after my previous review of similar-themed “The Lost Weekend” (1945).

Days of Wine and Roses (1962)

“They are not long, the weeping and the laughter, Love and desire and hate; I think they have no portion in us after We pass the gate. They are not long, the days of wine and roses, Out of a misty dream Our path emerges for a while, then closes Within a dream.” (Ernest Dowson)

The film’s title was taken from this poem by Ernest Dowson, and the film’s story is about Joe Clay (Jack Lemmon), a public-relations man who does not mind to indulge in drinking as part of his job arranging and going to parties. When he meets beautiful Kirsten Arnasen (Lee Remick), both become smitten with each other, and Joe soon introduces Kirsten to the pleasures of drinking by pouring a crème de cocoa in her brandy. After their marriage, however, the pair’s slide into booze-madness gets steeper, and their drinking intensifies, until both of them do not see any way out.

**SPOILER ALERT**

The opening sequence is the song “Days of Wine and Roses” by Henry Mancini/Johnny Mercer, which won an Academy Award in 1963, and which provides for a nice intro into this film, which incidentally was a TV drama first. Now, as a film, it is directed by Blake Edwards and written by JP Miller. The plot may require patience at the beginning, but, because of its strong portrayal of the disease, all-round character study and fantastic performances, the film proves to be an engaging drama. From “The Lost Weekend” to “When a Man Loves a Woman” (1994) and “Flight” (2012), the portrayal of alcoholism in film has been diverse, if somewhat predictable. However, in “Days of Wine and Roses”, arguably, there is another angle to its portrayal entirely. First of all, in the film, there is so-called “folie à deux”, with the lovers feeding their alcohol addiction to each other, fuelling their bottle-madness. As both Joe and Kirsten recognise in the film, there has always been a bottle between them, a third party in their marriage, and alcohol did play a role in bringing them together. Secondly, even when “Days of Wine and Roses” shows the usual downward spirals associated with alcoholism, such as a job loss and a family break-up, it is also wise enough to cover not only the extent of a problem, but also possible roads to recovery. For example, the characters admit that the way to combat their addiction is first to recognise themselves being in trouble and being “alcoholics”, something which Kirsten fails to do successfully, being afraid of the stigma. This may also explain why she is averse to the idea of attending “Alcoholics Anonymous” meetings, as for a woman the burden may be twice as harsh as for a man, seeing that a woman is supposed to represent exemplary motherhood and utmost modestly in the habits and behaviour. Finally, unlike many other similar-themed movies, “Days of Wine and Roses” really shows the whole journey of a person from her first drink to the state of denial and desperation. In this case, it is Kirsten, who first starts drinking “seriously” with Joe, and then her addiction gets so bad that she inadvertently sets fire to an apartment, and even later denies that she has any problem at all.

The chemistry between Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick lights up the screen, and their initial meeting feels almost original, because it is so memorable. From their very first scenes, Kirsten is a challenge for Joe. He mistakes her for one of “party” girls on a yacht, and says that she is dressed wrongly, and, then, she brushes him off as offensive and demeaning, while he tries to provoke any reaction from her. Also, from the very first scenes of their romance, alcohol enters their relationship. “Can I buy you a drink”, asks Joe casually; “No, I don’t drink”, says Kirsten; Joe then asks “What do you have against booze?”, and she replies “I don’t see much point in it”;“Well it makes you feel good”, he concludes. As drinking brings them together, so, unfortunately, it separates them in the end.

It is clear that “Days of Wine and Roses” is the Jack Lemmon movie. He plays a “normal” guy with a steady job, who is, sometimes, downright dislikeable and selfish, and, sometimes, charming and welcoming. Jack Lemmon’s versatility on screen is admirable. He can make the audience horrified by his character’s lack of self-respect and maniac obsessions, but, in a few seconds time, he can also make this same audience totally heartbroken and feel the plight of the same character, who is now on the verge of a mental breakdown. Lemmon makes Clay both: an “average” cursing Joe and a classy gentleman, who can make any lady swoon, and his performance in the film is among his greatest. Oddly, his “funny” scenes of drunkenness are the saddest to watch, because they are so realistic, be it where Joe searches frantically for booze in the orangery, or displays sheer hysteria while confined to a straightjacket. Lemmon is also an expert in showing the rapid changes of mood that his character can undergo: from total desperation and hopelessness, when Joe is crying his heart out, rolling on the floor and searching for booze, to happiness and euphoria, when Joe laughs maniacally, having found his bottle. Joe’s pursuit of a drink is sometimes akin to one’s pursuit of an elixir of life, and Lemmon shows clearly all the obsessions, and highs and lows of Joe’s struggle. Professional, sober and polite Joe? Happy, charming and romantic Joe? Reckless, paranoid and apprehensive Joe? Angry, violent and scary Joe? Lemmon can do it all, and with the ease few actors could master.

Jack Lemmon’s co-start, Lee Remick, is as good in her portrayal of Joe’s wife. Remick is tasked to portray seemingly two different personalities/sides to Kirsten, and her portrayal is very believable: raw and genuine. From a happy, easy-going, careless girl in love with her father and husband, Kirsten turns into a completely drunk and nonsensical woman, tired of life. However, there is another side of Kirsten too, and, sometimes, she is reflective and melancholic. For example, when Kirsten talks of her dream where she is murdered by thugs and her father is forced to carry her body, thanks to Remick’s believable performance, the audience really gets this sense that there is another “layer” to Kirsten, something mysterious and deep, perhaps hidden way behind her merry blue eyes.

The problem with this film is that, ironically, it is sometimes very hard to sympathise with the character of Joe Clay, and this issue has little to do with Lemmon’s portrayal of Joe, but rather resides in the script. Joe is supposed to be an ordinary guy with his weaknesses and vices, but there must also be present a sense of humility, repentance and sympathy. Were not these the qualities in the character which won the affection of the audience towards the end of “The Lost Weekend”? Unfortunately, given the film’s circumstances, Joe never manages to present himself in a really good light, and the emotional connection between him and the audience is never really established. Firstly, the awful way Joe treats his wife in the film will raise many an eyebrow in the twenty-first century, but the problem is not even that. It is Joe who is responsible for introducing alcohol into Kirsten’s life by mixing her favourite chocolate with brandy, and when they both seemingly “gave up” on drinking half-way through the film, it is again Joe who re-introduces alcohol into their lives, and starts their “vicious circle” all over again. Thus, at the end of the film, when “alcoholic” Kirsten comes to already “sober” Joe, it looks like an irrational and irresponsible criminal coming to a “common-sense” judge, which is simply a wrong way too at it, because Joe should really bear the sole responsibility for Kirsten’s state, and Kirsten is really the victim here. Moreover, Joe, as Kirsten’s husband, makes little attempts in the story to seek treatment for her, and even leaves her to drink in a motel. Therefore, when Joe comes to seek forgiveness from Kirsten’s father, and her father says: “You have started my daughter drinking”, there is little here to feel apart from the sheer heart-break for the father who has just “lost” his daughter to a bottle thanks to Joe.

The film’s subject matter may not have an immediate appeal and there is still a felt unfair anti-female character message resonating throughout the film, but “Days of Wine Roses” is still a very-well acted, engaging drama. The merit of “Days of Wine and Roses” lies in the way it portrays the struggle with alcoholism: realistically and without unnecessary embellishments. Thanks to the outstanding performances by Lemmon and Remick, the film is both: engaging and romantic, and also deeply melancholic and tragic. 7/10

Yes, I suppose this is really the tragedy of the whole situation. But, the again, from the very beginning Lemmon’s character has had that special relationship with alcohol, whereas Remick’s character was initially opposed to the idea of drinking, like she instinctively knew it would not be good for her in particular at all. I suppose it would have been nicer for Joe to give up on drinking just for her, rather than be so selfish and involve her in all this.

Thanks for the mention and I really enjoyed your review of this emotionally complex film about alcohol. Given Joe is an alcoholic from the start he’s, as you say, difficult to like so his journey to attempted recovery remains a powerful one. This film remains as tragic reminder even now as to the strength of alcohol or any addiction. Great review again!

I first saw the movie on TV when I was around twelve and was captivated by it. The final shot with Lemmon watching Remick through the window while the bar sign flashed was so powerful. While most people consider Edwards a comedy director, two of my favorites of his are this one and Experiment In Terror (also with Remick and with an evocative Mancini theme. This movie also provides one degree of separation between the movie and TV versions of The Odd Couple, since you have Jack Klugman as the counselor who helps Lemmon.

I wish I watched Days of Wine and Roses earlier, it is so evocative. I have to say I haven’t yet seen either the Odd Couple or Experiment in Terror. There is something about the movies made in 1960s which is so appealing.